Tag Archives: Personal injury lawyer

Plaintiff was walking on Defendants’ property in order to pay for gasoline. Plaintiff tripped on a protruding piece of cement on Defendants’ property that was abutting a handicap ramp. Plaintiff tripped and fell face forward into the mini market’s cement wall. Plaintiff injured his shoulder, head, wrist, knees, back, neck, nose, lips, chest. As a result, Plaintiff received immediate emergency treatment and has been undergoing treatment since the accident with constant residual pain.

LIABILITY:

Plaintiff parked his car in order to pay for gasoline at the gas station window. After exiting his car, he walked toward the pay window and tripped on the abutting cement. The ramp had no railing that most handicap ramps have. There were no warning signs advising of the abutting cement. The cement ramp came to an abrupt point and is located in a place where people walk from their car to the market.

INJURIES:

After arriving at the emergency room, Plaintiff was examined and given medication for pain. Plaintiff underwent a series of CT scans and x-rays and was ultimately admitted to the hospital, where he stayed for almost a week. The x-ray at the hospital indicated a “humeral neck fracture”. Plaintiff’s shoulder was secured by a shoulder immobilizer.

Plaintiff was seen at the hospital by his primary care physician. Plaintiff had swelling from his shoulder through his forearm. The doctor advised Plaintiff that he must continue to wear the shoulder immobilizer.

Plaintiff followed up with the doctor the following week and he re-examined Plaintiff and advised him that he should continue to wear the immobilizer for an additional four weeks. Plaintiff was referred to undergo physical therapy and began said therapy at a rehab facility.Plaintiff’s condition was only minimally improving. Plaintiff underwent physical therapy

RESIDUAL COMPLAINTS AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:

Plaintiff still experiences constant head pain, constant right shoulder pain that radiates to his back, and constant hip pain. Plaintiff experiences intermittent pain to both his knees. Plaintiff also still experiences almost constant pain in his neck.

Plaintiff is no longer able to perform the normal housework or errands which require carrying heavy items. Before the accident, Plaintiff, an elderly gentleman, was able to maintain his home without the need of anyone’s help. Due to the accident, Plaintiff was forced to hire a housekeeper. Plaintiff cannot accomplish simple household tasks such as making his bed or cleaning the bathroom.

APPLICABLE LAW:

An owner who conducts active operations on the premises must exercise ordinary care for the safety of everyone she knows, or should expect, to be on the property. Oettinger v Stewart, 24 C2d 133, 138 (1944).

CONCLUSION:

THIS CASE WAS SETTLED OUT OF COURT, AND THE CLIENT GOT THE MONEY THEY DESERVED!

Plaintiff was a passenger on a Los Angeles County MTA bus proceeding home from work. As the bus was proceeding north on a highwawy, the bus driver struck another vehicle, a Hummer SUV. Plaintiff was standing towards the front of the bus as she was about to exit at the upcoming bus stop. Upon impact Plaintiff was thrown forward into a pole on the bus and was injured. The LAPD report indicated that the driver of the bus was at fault for this accident, in violation of California Vehicle Code §22107, unsafe lane change.

LIABILITY

Plaintiff was a negligent-free passenger on the bus. Defendant and Cross-Defendant dispute which vehicle changed lanes causing the accident and subsequent injury to Plaintiff.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGES

Plaintiff sustained trauma to her head, neck, back, and left shoulder as a result of this collision. She was evaluated by a hospital and followed up with a doctor who reported that Plaintiff had severe headaches, pain in the neck, back, and shoulder. The docotor diagnosed Plaintiff with 1) post-traumatic cerebral syndrome, 2) post-traumatic cervical muscololigamentous sprain, 3) post-traumaticlumbosacral muscololigamentous sprain, and 4) post-traumatic left shoulder sprain. Physical therapy was prescribed as well as Celebrex for the pain.

Plaintiff sought physical therapy and received heat and ice pack therapy, ultrasound, joint mobilization, massage, and therapeutic exercise therapy. While some symptoms subsided at the completion of physical therapy, Plaintiff still continued to have pain and followed up with her doctor. He recommended another set of physical therapy sessions which Plaintiff underwent.

RESIDUAL COMPLAINTS AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES

Plaintiff still suffers from intermittent neck pain radiating into her shoulder. She has trouble performing simple daily activities such as lifting bags of groceries or turning her head while driving.

CONCLUSION:

THIS CASE WAS SETTLED OUT OF COURT, AND THE CLIENT GOT THE MONEY THEY DESERVED!

Plaintiff was driving a 2004 Porsche SUV eastbound on the 580 Freeway near Pleasanton, California in the number one lane. Defendant was driving a Toyota Prius behind plaintiff’s vehicle and rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle causing injury to plaintiffs. Plaintiff number 2 was a passenger in plaintiff ‘s vehicle.

LIABILITY

Defendant rear ended plaintiff and liability is not contested.

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained over $6,000 in property damage.

MEDICAL BILLS TO DATE

Plaintiff incurred medical expenses in the sum of $43,497.53.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGES

Plaintiff suffered injuries to his right knee, neck, back, left shoulder, arm, and head as a result of this rear-end collision. Following the accident he sought treatment from a doctor. Plaintiff began a course of chiropractic therapy. X-rays were ordered, however, due to the increased pain, specifically in his right knee, the doctor referred plaintiff to another doctor for an orthopedic consultation.

Facts: A 19 year old was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk going eastbound when Defendant pulled out of a private driveway and struck the bicyclist.

WHO IS AT FAULT?

Plaintiff testified he was travelling between five and ten miles per hour prior to impact; he was “just coasting” and “cradling the brakes”. There were no pedestrians in the area. Plaintiff testified that he was careful to look out for cars coming out of driveways.

RELEVANT CALIFORNIA LAW:

The California vehicle code does not prohibit bicycle riders from riding on the sidewalk, on either side of the street.

21804. (a) The driver of any vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from any public or private property, or from an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic, as defined in Section 620, approaching on the highway close enough to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that traffic until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety. Cal. Veh. Code Section 21804(a). Emphasis added.

As to the definition of “right of way”: Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instruction (CAC) 701 states”

“When the law requires a [driver/pedestrian] to “yield the right-of way” to [another/a] [vehicle/pedestrian], this means that the [driver/pedestrian] must let the [other] [vehicle/pedestrian] go first.

The only California Code dealing with bicycle operations on a sidewalk, merely allows local municipalities to maintain their own regulations:

“This chapter does not prevent local authorities, by ordinance, from regulating the registration of bicycles and the parking and operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle facilities, provided such regulation is not in conflict with the provisions of this code”. Cal. Veh. Code Section 21206.

RELEVANT LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE:

This accident occurred within the City of Los Angeles. This fact is not disputed. The only applicable Los Angeles Municipal Code section states:

“No person shall ride, operate or use a bicycle, unicycle, skateboard, cart, wagon, wheelchair, rollerskates, or any other device moved exclusively by human power, on a sidewalk, bikeway or boardwalk in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” L.A.M.C. Section 56.15

The above ordinance makes it clear that the only situation a bicycle is not allowed to operate on a sidewalk is when he is operating in a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. The legislators chose their words carefully. The code does not state that the requirement be “negligent riding” or “fast riding”, rather, the ordinance chose its words carefully and used very strong language indicating an intentional hazardous type of riding.

There is no evidence whatsoever supporting that Plaintiff was riding his bicycle in a negligent manner and surely not in a “wanton or willful disregard for the safety…”

When thinking of legal matter and the court system the first thing that comes to mind is of course the many hours to be spent in the courtrooms, and the personal injury lawyer who do not charge hourly, but who will be paid from the proceeds of your case. So, if you are someone who has sufficient cause to file a personal injury lawsuit against another person or company, then you might want to avoid some common pitfalls that a rookie might make.

Whatever your case may be, it goes without saying that one with an excellent personal injury lawyer is like a case half won. A good attorney will be able to influence the decisions of the judge and jury through brilliant cross-examinations. Given below are some steps that you can follow if you want to pursue a personal injury lawsuit in a court of law.

Hiring an attorney

The importance of an attorney has already been analyzed and explained. Yet, it is still an important part of filing a lawsuit, and to find an experienced attorney, you will have to break some sweat. Local or state bar associations will have references and qualifications of their attorneys, so it will be a good place to start your hunt for an attorney. One of the best ways is asking some of your friends who have had positive experiences with an injury lawyer.

Court processes

The court processes start with a formal complaint being filed. The court will allow some time for the defendant to offer answer the lawsuit, which needs to be properly “served”.

Statute of limitations

You will have to file a complaint within a certain time period which is ascertained by the statute of limitations laws. In California, the statute of limitations in injury cases is two years from the date of injury.

Evidence

Lawyers for personal injury cases

The burden of proving the case is on the plaintiff or the victim, who must prove with the help of sufficient evidence that the actions of the defendant were responsible for the injuries he or she had to suffer. Some of the items to be addressed: The plaintiff must also provide enough proof showing that the actions of the defendant and defendant only were responsible for the injuries that he or she had to suffer.

Intentional actions

IF an intentional tort is at issue, it is also up to the plaintiff to prove that the actions of the defendant were intentional and not the result of coincidence or an accident.

The bottom line

Court processes can drag on forever if you are not represented by an efficient injury attorney. As it is quite clear, it is up to the plaintiff to prove whose fault the accident was.

Categories

Latest Post

This is a reminder to all SoCal Drivers to stay safe in the rain! Statistics show that rain is one of the biggest contributing factors to car accidents. How you react can prevent further injuries, reduce costs and … Continue reading →

Address

12520 Magnolia Blvd.
Suite 302
N. Hollywood, CA 91607

7250 Beverly Blvd. #102
Los Angeles, CA 90036

Phone: 888-450-1979
Fax: 323-606-8180

Get Social

Download Our "Car Crash Assist" App

Testimonials

Another Satisfied Client

“I was referred to Ari Friedman after my car was totaled in a rear end collision. Having Ari as my PI attorney made an extremely stressful situation so simple and easy. I always felt like Ari put so much time and effort into my case. I really appreciate Ari and all of his hard work. Definitely recommend!”

Natalie A. December 19, 2015

"PROFESSIONAL", "EFFICIENT", "TRUSTWORTHY"

"Mr. Friedman was professional, friendly, efficient and took care of everything for me. If you are looking for a no hassle trustworthy lawyer that gets your desired results, I would highly recommend Mr. Friedman."

Chianne P. May 7, 2011

"TOTALLY PREPARED"

“Ari is an excellent attorney and is always totally prepared for any appearance in court. His presentation far exceeds his years in practice and his age. Very Knowledgeable. I highly recommend him.

Arbitrator/Mediator, APA November 12, 2009

TRIAL EXPERIENCE

"Ari and I handled a case together against a major supermarket chain. The corporation hired their go-to trial lawyer and we had to battle the case all the way through litigation, discovery, depositions, and even a jury trial, which we won. Throughout it all, Ari was alert, focused, strategic, and tough. Frankly, the more the corporate defense lawyers pushed him, the tougher he got. I look forward to working with him in the future.”

A Fellow Trial Attorney July 1, 2014

Another Satisfied Client

"Ari Friedman handled our auto accident with the upmost professionalism, patience and care. He and his office staff are very friendly and courteous, and he was great and very prompt in communication. I would definitely recommend him because we never felt like "just another case." Auto accidents are a stressful time, but he was there for us throughout the way. Thank you, Ari for helping us!"

Dilyana V., March 13, 2013

Utmost Satisfaction!

Ari,I appreciate the excellent legal attention you gave me and the timely manner and professionalism in which you handled my case. God bless!